I seem to have lost the original message about this, but I like what you
have stated here, David. I guess I am in the milder group as I do like
flowers and landscapes. I can also relate to your risk factor comments. I
guess there are all kinds of risk, not just to personal injury. One risk I
have is the fear of getting caught pointing a camera at someone for a
clandestine shot. Just not in me. Lluis of the LUG is amazing in what he is
able to shoot. I would just die trying to do what he does, but then again
he has the invisibility cloak to help him. Much safer, mentally speaking,
for me to shoot a mountain than a person I do not know. Now if it were a
contestant in an event, I have no problem. I am talking the candid shot. I
am working on that as you might see from some of my posts of photographers
and dogs, but a long lens is my friend. I don't think I have the fear of
failure. I take "risks" in the lab in trying different things. As I would
tell my students, if an experiment turns out the way you planned, you
learned one thing. If it does not, you have the possibility of learning so
much more.
More questions. Do I shoot mainly nature because I am a biologist, or am I
a biologist because of my personality so I really shoot nature because of my
personality rather than my training? Probably the latter. We do shoot what
is available to us and interpret it in our way, but what about when we go
places far afield? In that case we can make anything we want available to
us, yet I find myself seeking places that suite my style. My comfort zone,
I guess. If you traveled to the desert southwest, you might still seek out
a rodeo to shoot, rather than the Taos Pueblo dwelling.
Not sure if I mad any sense here. The sun is out and I have not seen it for
many days. It even tried to snow this morning. I am sun crazy.
Aram
-----Original Message-----
From: David Young
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 3:14 PM
To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [LRflex] Re: Old files - for Peter Stevens.
Good Day, Peter.
Back on January 18th, you asked a very interesting question. In essence,
you wondered how a photographer's personality influences the images he or
she shoots.
You specifically mentioned Aram, Ted, Peter and Bill in your post. I've had
the great pleasure to get to know them all, at least to some degree. But,
I'm going to keep my response to the question at hand and not discuss their
work. For, no matter what I say, it's just safer for my friendships, that
way. ;-)
But, to answer your question, I do think that personality does have a big
influence in the type of subjects we choose to photograph and the manner in
which we do it. Any of us can get very good at what we do, and one style
is not necessarily any better than another... though viewers will differ on
that, as their personalities will influence which images they like.
You mentioned how quiet, introspective personalities tend to dominate in
eye-surgery, whereas energetic, extroverts tend to dominate orthopedic
surgery.
Your comment brings to mind two stories. The first was a customer of
mine... an ophthalmic surgeon. He was a quiet, soft-spoken man. A finer man
you could never wish to meet and, by reputation, one of the finest eye
surgeons around until,one evening, years ago, he was sadly run down by a
drunk. The other was an orthopedic surgeon who was to do surgery on a
friend of mine. I was visiting my friend, in the hospital, when the good
doctor breezed into the room and with a broad smile and a booming voice
introduced himself. "Hi!" he said. "I'm Dr. Unida ... as in You Need A
doctor!" I only ever met him the once, but I'll never forget his name.
A great amount of what we shoot is determined by what is available to us.
All very fine to shoot the Eiffel Tower, if you live in Paris, but if you
live in Des Moines, Iowa, it's hard to do! I shoot rodeos, Pond Hockey and
Ice Racing (when the season's not canceled due to unsafe ice caused by an
extraordinarily warm winter). Why? Because they are what's available to
shoot, in my area, and they interest me. Yes, there are lots of mountains
and lakes, too, but landscape photography has never "turned my crank".
Someone of a "milder" personality than myself might shoot flowers,
landscapes or do tons of macro work. Slower, more studied forms of
photography. Please don't misunderstand me. Such shots are often stunning
and take great talent. Certainly, they beyond my ken!
It simply takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. It's as true of
photographers as it is of all people.
As for your question about "does a photographer have a distinctive style?"
I think, yes. But, it takes a long time for most to develop that style, and
some (if not most) never do.
But having had the honour of knowing Dr. Ted long before he had the "Dr". I
think I'd recognize one of his shots, anywhere. But, then he has had 60+
years, and opportunities beyond the wildest dreams of most of us, to
develop his "look".
I teach a lot of people, of all ages. I had one, middle-aged, beginner,
last fall, who expressed his frustration at not being able to master one
particular style of shot. I cannot, now, even remember what it was, but it
was the type of thing that only years of experience will allow you to get
right. Yet he complained about not being able to master it, despite having
devoted some 45 minutes to the task! I suspect that he will not go on, to
develop a "look" of his own. But, of course, I could be wrong.
In addition to the "look" that some of us develop in our shots, there is
also the risk factor. No matter what style of photography we prefer, the
risk factor also determines, to an extent, the look of our shots.
You mention Dave Sanford's incredible surf images of Lake Erie. Dave, with
his wet-suit, life vest and waterproof camera housing, has more guts than I
have. Had I had that opportunity, and the money, in my 20's I might have
considered it. But, not now.
As in so many fields, be it business or photography, the bigger the risk,
the bigger the rewards...but the greater the failures.
It made me think of my friend, Bernie, who shoots a lot of rodeos and gets
great shots. But, he also gets right in the rodeo arena (you need
accreditation, permission & extra insurance for that). As Ted will attest;
being in the ring, with bucking broncs and bulls can be really rewarding,
but can also be quite dangerous if you do not remain fully aware of your
surroundings, at all times. On the other hand, there are lots of people who
don't want to take that risk, but still want a decent shot. They make
compromises.
So, here's an image of Bernie alongside a lady photographer; taken way back
in 2010. I think, sums up this point - to perfection.
http://www.furnfeather.net/Look/Pro-Am.html
So, yes, personality, one's level of acceptable risk, skill level and the
opportunities available to us all influence what we shoot and how our shots
look.
There is only one thing that does NOT affect the look of our photography.
And yet it is the one most often blamed for our poor results. And that is
the equipment we use.
As Ed Steichen famously said: "No photographer is as good as the simplest
camera."
Or, as Vernon Trent said:
"..amateurs worry about equipment,
professionals worry about money,
masters worry about light...
I just take pictures..."
David.
--
David Young - Photographer
Logan Lake,BC, CANADA
Webpage: www.furnfeather.net
Photography e-books: http://tinyurl.com/SS2SS-Books
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
